On September 18, 2011, a startling scientific breakthrough was reported in the rather esoteric journal Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. The article announced that the structure of the M-PMV protein, a key enzyme that allows the HIVvirus to multiply and grow into AIDS, had been discovered. According to researchers, this discovery could lead to treatments and possibly a cure for AIDS.
What was truly startling about the article, though, was how the protein structure was discovered. Scientists, engineers and automated computer programs had worked to determine the M-PMV structure for almost a decade with no success. The researchers, feeling that they had exhausted what traditional science could offer, decided to reach outside of the scientific community. They enlisted the help of a global network of gamers involved in the protein folding game known as Fold It! It took the gamers only three weeks to solve the puzzle even though most had no background in biochemistry!
I first heard about Fold It! when reading Jane McGonigal's book, Reality Is Broken. It was one of many examples of socially important, serious games. In her book, McGonigal proposed that the same principles that game designers use to elicit maximum concentration and engagement in players could be applied to solving some of the world's most complex and perplexing problems. The success of Fold It! certainly gives credence to her thesis.
So why were the gamers successful when the experts were not? There are a number of possible reasons. First, there were thousands of them working to solve the problem. They were highly engaged because they were doing something they enjoyed, solving puzzles, and they were working on something that they viewed as "bigger than themselves." Finally, they weren't experts! Thus, they were not constrained by years of professional dogma and assumptions.
The M-PMV success story serves as only one example of how things are changing in the way the world approaches problems and determines success. This has enormous implications for education. The world no longer looks upon a diploma or degree as the ultimate indicator of competence. Sometimes the most difficult problems can only be solved by "citizen scientists" whose enthusiasm, naivete and special skills make them best suited for a particular challenge. In short, people willing to think "outside the box."
Many educators today are beginning to integrate games and game theory into their instruction. In so doing, they hope to achieve the same level of engagement, concentration and commitment that the players of Fold It! exhibited. This may not only enhance their students' learning, but also prepare them to play a vital role in changing the world.
Showing posts with label learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label learning. Show all posts
Monday, October 3, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Education as Science: A Dangerous Myth?
While driving to work last Monday, I was shocked to hear a report on NPR claiming that the long-held belief by educators that individuals exhibit different learning styles was a myth. Throughout the day, the story was recounted in Twitter posts and newspaper headlines proclaiming, "Learning Styles Debunked by Scientists!"
The provocative headlines, of course, corresponded to the first day of school in many locations. A day when news editors search for the ultimate back to school story. It used to be a day when newspapers and the local news featured stories about excited youngsters excitedly climbing onto the school bus for the first time leaving behind tearful parents. In the din of today's media, such human interest stories are no longer sufficient to capture the attention news outlets seek.
NPR based its story on a study published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. It was interesting to note that the study appeared in the journal in December of 2009, but for some reason became "breaking news" on September 29, 2011.
When I explored further, I learned that the study was a meta-analysis of research on learning styles that focused on the research designs used. Any study that did not use an experimental design featuring randomization and a pre-test post-test format was discarded as invalid. The actual report can be downloaded at the link below:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf
Those who know me, know that I am passionate about science. Although far from a scientist myself, I am enthralled by stories of the latest developments in nanotechnology, high-energy physics or quantum mechanics. My greatest passion, though, is learning. Not just my personal learning, but also helping others to learn and appreciate the learning experience.
So, given my passion for science and learning, one would think that I would be right on-board with the psychologist/scientists. But, I am not. In fact, I think that the concept of scientific teaching has actually hurt education over the years.
In addition to the journal article, the NPR story referenced a professor at the University of Virginia, Dan Willingham, who contends that teachers should not try to tailor instruction to different kinds of learners, that instead we should look for similarities in how our brains learn. That does make a certain amount of sense, but isn't that how public schools currently operate? Don't we test children to determine similar aptitudes and behavior, then we group them together and teach them all the same? Isn't that what has become known as "teaching to the mean?"
We hear time and again that today's schools are based upon the industrial model developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Perhaps the most influential architect of that model was one Frederick W. Taylor, who introduced the concept of "Scientific Management." Scientific management used data, most notably time-motion studies, to increase production and efficiency. It also introduced a level of accountability as workers had to meet standards of performance lest they suffer adverse consequences. Sound familiar?
NCLB's emphasis on "empirically" proven strategies, standards and accountability would certainly garner support from Frederick Taylor and his disciples. In education, The purest manifestation of a "scientific" approach emerged in the late '70s and '80s with the introduction of Applied Behavioral Analysis. ABA grew out of the behaviorist school of psychology and continues to have a voice in education, especially in the treatment of Autism.
The problem with "scientific" management or "scientific" teaching is that its focus is far too narrow for the dynamic environments we find in the 21st century. This narrow focus constrains the model so that it can only impact the lowest levels of learning whether in the classroom or the workplace. A scientific model, by definition, must focus on independent (the intervention) and dependent (the outcome) variables. The learner plays an almost insignificant role in the process. Where do higher-order thinking skills fit into such a paradigm, or are they soon to be debunked as well.
There are far more troubling issues facing education today than fidelity to empirically proven teaching methods. A study by College of William and Mary professor Kyung Hee Kim shows a decline for the first time in creativity in America's school children. Now that's worth worrying about!
The provocative headlines, of course, corresponded to the first day of school in many locations. A day when news editors search for the ultimate back to school story. It used to be a day when newspapers and the local news featured stories about excited youngsters excitedly climbing onto the school bus for the first time leaving behind tearful parents. In the din of today's media, such human interest stories are no longer sufficient to capture the attention news outlets seek.
NPR based its story on a study published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. It was interesting to note that the study appeared in the journal in December of 2009, but for some reason became "breaking news" on September 29, 2011.
When I explored further, I learned that the study was a meta-analysis of research on learning styles that focused on the research designs used. Any study that did not use an experimental design featuring randomization and a pre-test post-test format was discarded as invalid. The actual report can be downloaded at the link below:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf
Those who know me, know that I am passionate about science. Although far from a scientist myself, I am enthralled by stories of the latest developments in nanotechnology, high-energy physics or quantum mechanics. My greatest passion, though, is learning. Not just my personal learning, but also helping others to learn and appreciate the learning experience.
So, given my passion for science and learning, one would think that I would be right on-board with the psychologist/scientists. But, I am not. In fact, I think that the concept of scientific teaching has actually hurt education over the years.
In addition to the journal article, the NPR story referenced a professor at the University of Virginia, Dan Willingham, who contends that teachers should not try to tailor instruction to different kinds of learners, that instead we should look for similarities in how our brains learn. That does make a certain amount of sense, but isn't that how public schools currently operate? Don't we test children to determine similar aptitudes and behavior, then we group them together and teach them all the same? Isn't that what has become known as "teaching to the mean?"
We hear time and again that today's schools are based upon the industrial model developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Perhaps the most influential architect of that model was one Frederick W. Taylor, who introduced the concept of "Scientific Management." Scientific management used data, most notably time-motion studies, to increase production and efficiency. It also introduced a level of accountability as workers had to meet standards of performance lest they suffer adverse consequences. Sound familiar?
NCLB's emphasis on "empirically" proven strategies, standards and accountability would certainly garner support from Frederick Taylor and his disciples. In education, The purest manifestation of a "scientific" approach emerged in the late '70s and '80s with the introduction of Applied Behavioral Analysis. ABA grew out of the behaviorist school of psychology and continues to have a voice in education, especially in the treatment of Autism.
The problem with "scientific" management or "scientific" teaching is that its focus is far too narrow for the dynamic environments we find in the 21st century. This narrow focus constrains the model so that it can only impact the lowest levels of learning whether in the classroom or the workplace. A scientific model, by definition, must focus on independent (the intervention) and dependent (the outcome) variables. The learner plays an almost insignificant role in the process. Where do higher-order thinking skills fit into such a paradigm, or are they soon to be debunked as well.
There are far more troubling issues facing education today than fidelity to empirically proven teaching methods. A study by College of William and Mary professor Kyung Hee Kim shows a decline for the first time in creativity in America's school children. Now that's worth worrying about!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Laws of Disruption
In his book The Laws of Disruption, Larry Downes states that "technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally." This phenomenon has led to legal battles over copyright, patents, privacy etc.
If social, economic and legal systems change incrementally, educational systems evolve glacially. This is not surprising. After all, one of the primary functions of education is to preserve the knowledge, traditions and culture of society. It is true, as astronaut Christa McAuliffe proclaimed, teachers "touch the future." Yet, most of their work involves the past.
I remember reading once that schools teach only one subject...history. Schools teach the history of mathematics, the history of literature, the history of science and so forth. On reflection, this is a pretty valid observation. In science and math, we ask our students to prove that which has already been proven. We ask them to discover that which has already been discovered and we ask them to learn, that which is already known.
This is not a criticism. This is what schools were created to do. But at a time when most of the information in the world can be carried in your pocket; at a time when science is capable of manipulating the most fundamental aspects of nature and life; at a time when broadband and wireless networks triumph over time and space, can schools continue to function this way?
In 2008, Clayton Christensen wrote Disrupting Class. It quickly became a must read for educators and Christensen and his co-author Michael Horn became much sought after speakers on the national educational conference circuit. The book stirred an important discussion among educators, although a rather narrow one to my way of thinking.
It is my hope that Disruptive Reflections will expand the conversation on how schools can leverage disruptive innovations to prepare our students for a world that moves at the speed of light, a world that faces daunting problems and endless possibilities. This blog will look at advances in science, engineering, business and technology and relate them to the changing needs of our students.
Join me in this conversation. Look for new posts weekly.
If social, economic and legal systems change incrementally, educational systems evolve glacially. This is not surprising. After all, one of the primary functions of education is to preserve the knowledge, traditions and culture of society. It is true, as astronaut Christa McAuliffe proclaimed, teachers "touch the future." Yet, most of their work involves the past.
I remember reading once that schools teach only one subject...history. Schools teach the history of mathematics, the history of literature, the history of science and so forth. On reflection, this is a pretty valid observation. In science and math, we ask our students to prove that which has already been proven. We ask them to discover that which has already been discovered and we ask them to learn, that which is already known.
This is not a criticism. This is what schools were created to do. But at a time when most of the information in the world can be carried in your pocket; at a time when science is capable of manipulating the most fundamental aspects of nature and life; at a time when broadband and wireless networks triumph over time and space, can schools continue to function this way?
In 2008, Clayton Christensen wrote Disrupting Class. It quickly became a must read for educators and Christensen and his co-author Michael Horn became much sought after speakers on the national educational conference circuit. The book stirred an important discussion among educators, although a rather narrow one to my way of thinking.
It is my hope that Disruptive Reflections will expand the conversation on how schools can leverage disruptive innovations to prepare our students for a world that moves at the speed of light, a world that faces daunting problems and endless possibilities. This blog will look at advances in science, engineering, business and technology and relate them to the changing needs of our students.
Join me in this conversation. Look for new posts weekly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
